Hmm, at the risk of going off topic (I think this thread has died now anyway), of the apps that I always have open, there is no way I would ever want to maximise twitter/ichat/skype/ical all the time, yet their window sizes do vary. I like it the new way, so far, so long as people start to use zoom as zoom and not pseudo maximise - needs a keyboard shortcut for full screen tho!

That's no problem. The apps that don't need it simply don't get a maximize button. My feelings on the zoom button remain unchanged.

Yes, Duplicate is like save as. When you pick it, you get a nifty little animation where your window will pop out and spawn another one. If you attempt to save that, you will be prompted to name it.

That sounds like a real pain. I assume it's going to be named "Copy of [Filename]". And you won't be able to name it the same name as the original file. And it's always a little tricky clicking in the name field to highlight it to change it anyway. If you click more than once, it opens the file.

While being able to keep many versions of a file in a single file is SOMETIMES useful, there's other times where I know the changes I'm making are permanent and I don't want or need previous revisions. In fact, for my purposes, I have only extremely rare use for Time Machine. Just being able to click Command-S every once in a while is very easy...no popup windows to deal with, no interruption in work flow.

And if this is a file that has many revisions over a long period of time, I can't even imagine how large these file sizes will become. Which then makes them harder to email as attachments, etc. If they're going to implement this, it should be completely optional. The number of times that I'd want the feature turned on would be minimal. And there should be a way to delete all non-visible changes from the file.

Many more familiar with Lion have already answered, but, the way I understood it, files that haven't been touched in two weeks should be locked by default when Lion is installed anyway; how could Lion track file versions before it becomes the OS? Using your example (and I use a similar naming convention with some of my files), any 3-year-old file should prompt the user to either Unlock it or Duplicate it (which, logically, should also give you the option to rename the duplicate file as you wish).

I've always been really good about saving documents. Command-S has been ingrained as the last keystroke before my fingers leave the keyboard for as long as I can remember. And in all that time, I've never paid any attention to the dot in the red Close button. Nifty!

And what happens if you open such files on an older Mac OS version? Or Windows? Or Linux?

Wasn't there also some controversy a while back about Microsoft Word files containing everything that the user had typed, even if they edited and resaved the file? And people would be able to go inside the file and see things the user did not intend for the readers to see?

Yes, there was. But it was a contortion of the file format that made saving faster. It wrote the entire document to disk from scratch every 10th time. Moral: convert to PDF.

Many more familiar with Lion have already answered, but, the way I understood it, files that haven't been touched in two weeks should be locked by default when Lion is installed anyway; how could Lion track file versions before it becomes the OS? Using your example (and I use a similar naming convention with some of my files), any 3-year-old file should prompt the user to either Unlock it or Duplicate it (which, logically, should also give you the option to rename the duplicate file as you wish).

Most filesystems have a "Last Modified" metafield. Look at any file's Get Info and you'll see it there.

Save as should still be there, I use it all the time when I need to save word as a PDF or when xcel gets "document was not saved" error. Also I keep all of my current work in the downloads folder until quarter end, when they move to a more permanent documents folder. Hope you can choose to auto unlock that folder.

Auto Save and Versions
If you have a document-based application, Lion offers an efficient, built-in auto save feature that stores changes to the working document instead of creating additional copies on a disk. Versions automatically records a history of changes made to your documents and lets your app display a Time Machine like interface so users can browse through previous versions.

Obviously, it will up to the developer incorporate Versions... Apple cannot unilaterally or isn't capable to automatically change the menu items. Only the app developer can do that.

And to assume based on the information at hand that you won't be able to 'Save as', forward files without versions, Rename, etc., is just plain stupidity.

Man is it frustrating to see so many assumptions or people that just can't read or take the time to do some due diligence.

Okay, so I guess the question that I see everyone dancing around but not coming out and asking (apologies if I missed it) is:

When you Duplicate a file, is it a complete copy, with all the Versions still attached, or is it just the current Version of the file?

If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.

My workflow on some files is to take a saved blank version (a template) of a form, load it into Word, and immediately Save As with the current week attached to the file name, then edit in the details of what went on for the week. I have folders containing copies of these files that go back the last few years. So long as I start with that blank template file, it sounds like my workflow won't have to adjust much to these changes.

However, for example, for the monthly time sheets, it's not unknown for me to have to re-do them a couple times as errors get found and corrected, and I'd much rather lose the edits off the final copy than forward them along to HR with the final copy. So, does Versions have the ability to save off a "final copy" of the file, ditching the history of edits? If not, I feel it needs it.

Okay, so I guess the question that I see everyone dancing around but not coming out and asking (apologies if I missed it) is:

When you Duplicate a file, is it a complete copy, with all the Versions still attached, or is it just the current Version of the file?

If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.

don't know about how duplicate behaves but I think that your 'Finalize Document' is called 'Save a Version'

Most people don't have one file them update every three years, but whatever.

That's a very common scenario - I have many such files personally.

I think that while the improvments in Lion will be readily accepted as a new file system workflow/UI standard by users new to Mac OS X, there is likely going to be some significant relearning required for longtime Mac users who expect things to work in the old manner.

If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.

Save a version adds the current document as it stands as a version using the same filename. Said existing file might have a history of 2 or 200 previous versions you can revert to at any time. If you only ever save (i.e. save a version, in apps that support it, like Textedit), you will only ever have 1 filename, and it will have all the previous versions since the file was initially created.

When you save as a duplicate, it becomes a new file, the contents of which are equal to the most current version of the document you just duplicated, and the version history is not copied over, the new duplicate is in effect version 1 of that new file, so it will only start to accrue new versions as and when the duplicate gets edited.

Most people don't have one file them update every three years, but whatever.

It happens all the time in documentation for manufacturing. We update a product and have to change all of the IFU, MSDS, reference and service manuals. I generally take the original, save as with a new name and begin editing it. Very normal procedure in business. I'm sure Apple has this worked out. If nothing else, I can just option+drag in the finder to begin.

Most filesystems have a "Last Modified" metafield. Look at any file's Get Info and you'll see it there.

I know about "Last Modified", but are you saying that those file systems can discern the specific content of different versions of files from their "Last Modified" metafields as Lion will be able to do?

Sometimes we need protection from these improvements meant to help us. Just one example, with "versions".

As I understand it, if i have a document three years old, and have edited it on a number of occasions, it's gonna exist in its original form plus all the overtly-saved "versions" AND all the auto-saves (default: once per hour). From the illustration, those versions are distinguished by date and time, but not renamed--as can be done using the save-as function. To find a desired "spot" in that continuum I have to search them all, instead of having useful, identifying filenames.

Say what?

Over the past two days, after a meeting with my attorney, I've revised my 2008 "Separate Writing" document that is a part of my will. When i initiated these recent edits, I opened the 2008 file and saved it as "Separate Writing v 2011". Pretty simple, right? I now have two "versions" of that separate writing--one with the suffix v 2008, and one with the suffix v 2011.

Which better serves my purposes? Clearly, the latter. From the illustration in this article, there's no option to "save as" and rename a file. So instead of two clearly identified (by filename) documents, I'd have perhaps 20 or more--all with the same filename, distinguished only by date and time that provide no insight into content, or intent.

So to me, this would be a step backwards. (Give me the ability to "save as version" AND rename that version, and i'm on board).

You can still "save as", whoever suggested you couldn't. Additionally versions can be deleted in various ways. This in in addition, it's an improvement. You've overcomplicated a very simple, easy automated system which helps workflow, not replaces anything.

So where is the version info kept? If I send the file to someone, do they get the 'latest' file or the original with a million differences they have to process...

It also sounds like they don't distinguish between saving to make sure your edits are saved, and real versioning, where you only save the important copies, not every little keystroke. In the first comment about a will, how would he mark the '2008' and '2011 copies as the 'important ones', rather than one of several incremental saves?

Sometimes we need protection from these improvements meant to help us. Just one example, with "versions".

As I understand it, if i have a document three years old, and have edited it on a number of occasions, it's gonna exist in its original form plus all the overtly-saved "versions" AND all the auto-saves (default: once per hour). From the illustration, those versions are distinguished by date and time, but not renamed--as can be done using the save-as function. To find a desired "spot" in that continuum I have to search them all, instead of having useful, identifying filenames.

Say what?

Over the past two days, after a meeting with my attorney, I've revised my 2008 "Separate Writing" document that is a part of my will. When i initiated these recent edits, I opened the 2008 file and saved it as "Separate Writing v 2011". Pretty simple, right? I now have two "versions" of that separate writing--one with the suffix v 2008, and one with the suffix v 2011.

Which better serves my purposes? Clearly, the latter. From the illustration in this article, there's no option to "save as" and rename a file. So instead of two clearly identified (by filename) documents, I'd have perhaps 20 or more--all with the same filename, distinguished only by date and time that provide no insight into content, or intent.

So to me, this would be a step backwards. (Give me the ability to "save as version" AND rename that version, and i'm on board).

First of all "Duplicate" is the new "Save As...". It creates a duplicate of the most recent version of the file and allows you to save it under a different name and format.

When you're absolutely done with a document, you can lock it. Later when you want to make changes to it, you'll be reminded that it is locked. At that point you can either unlock it and modify the original, or by default, create a "duplicate".

There's nothing in this new feature that prevents you from working with documents as you normally do.

However, I do agree it would be a nice feature to be able to "bookmark" certain versions, and I'm sure if enough people send in a request for it, Apple may add it. This is a pre-beta release, so there is plenty of time for Apple to make changes where needed or desired.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

I missed something: if you full-screen a window with a control in the drag region, how to you un-full-screen it?

When a window goes full screen the menubar disappears. However, if you move the mouse to the top of the display, the menubar slides down, and sitting on the right side of the menubar is a new control that allows you to leave full-screen mode.

I assume the controls and implementation to all of this is going through a research phase right now. When Lion was first demoed, you clicked the green button to go full-screen, in the current version, there's a separate control on the right side of the window title bar.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

So where is the version info kept? If I send the file to someone, do they get the 'latest' file or the original with a million differences they have to process...

I've tried several ways to send a versioned file, they all come out flattened. No previous versions were sent with them.

I logged into MobileMe through Safari, sent a normal TextEdit file and sent an archived/zipped version of the same file.

In both Lion and Snow Leopard, both files only contained the most recent version.

So I'm guessing the OS is only giving you direct access to the most recent version while saving the "versioned" data somewhere else. So when you're working with the file in the Finder, you're always only dealing with the latest version.

Even if you copy the file in the Finder, you only end up with the current version of the file, it does not copy previous versions with it.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.

This is slightly off-topic, but the first sentence reminded me of the OpenDoc initiative from back in the day. Anyone else remember that?

The idea was to move the Mac OS to a document-centric paradigm, away from the app/program-centric one it was using, and continues to use today. Under OpenDoc, you would start a document by entering text with a word processing utility, then add a photo, crop, and stylize it with an image utility, and finally throw in a spreadsheet and graph with a spreadsheet utility (all done within the document, and without having to open three different apps).

One of the reasons that this document-centric approach failed was a lack of many small utilities that did one thing, and did it very well. It seems to me that this condition is now met, with the popularity of iPhone apps, and those beginning to cross over into the Mac App Store.

I wonder if Apple will attempt this paradigm shift again. If not in Mac OS X, then at least this strategy seems like a good idea for the iPad.

The most common reason for data loss is that the user haven't saved the file or it has been saved over an existing file by mistake.

You can already close open application with Command + Tab + Q. Much faster than using a mouse. And we probably going to have some new ways to manage open applications with Mission Control, who knows?

Instead of going through the Save As - Locate the file - Do something with it -approach, there's going to be some Share/Export options that lets you easily send the file as a PDF for example. This is a huge step forward! Most of the time you don't need to share the original production file and if you do, then you just make a duplicate, easy as that!

It's sad to read all these negative comments when somebody (Apple) is finally trying to break free from these old and complete unnecessary steps we take every day to do things that even most basic computers should be able to handle for us I mean, that's why I bought a Mac in the first place! I got tired of tweaking and fixing my computer all the time, I wanted it just to work. The same logic applies to operating system and applications - I want to focus on the task at hand and not on maintaining backups.

So this new auto save feature, all it does is auto save files for you, and save and backups previous entries you had in the document. When you are done editing the document, you save as duplicate to save one version that doesn't have the previous entries history saved in it as if it was a clean, final copy.

So, if that's what it is, I really don't see the fuss about it. Though they should rename duplicate to final copy or something.

I don't like the resume thing that much. When I close an app, I want it closed, turned off, not on anymore. Most likely I don't want it to save its "session." I like the idea of them making the red button always turn off the app, but I hope they don't make it by default that you just close the window, but the app is always on running in the background. I know its kinda like that way now, and for some stuff, like iTunes, its useful, its just I want to make sure, when I do want the app completely turned off, its off. I don't care if its using 95% less resources, I just want it off. I hope they don't take out Application Name - Quite application / Command + Q.

Full screen idea is kinda cool, but I have a 27 inch iMac because I want to be able to have a lot of apps open, at once, and see them them all. Not one giant app taking up the whole screen. I own a computer, not a portable device with a small screen. This means now if I want to change window size I will always have to use resize and drag my window to be bigger or smaller. Be nice if they just made a new function key that forces the app to full screen, or at least allow us to decided what we want the green button to do.

...When you are done editing the document, you save as duplicate to save one version that doesn't have the previous entries history saved in it as if it was a clean, final copy.

So, if that's what it is, I really don't see the fuss about it. Though they should rename duplicate to final copy or something.

I don't like the resume thing that much. When I close an app, I want it closed, turned off, not on anymore. Most likely I don't want it to save its "session." I like the idea of them making the red button always turn off the app, but I hope they don't make it by default that you just close the window, but the app is always on running in the background. I know its kinda like that way now, and for some stuff, like iTunes, its useful, its just I want to make sure, when I do want the app completely turned off, its off. I don't care if its using 95% less resources, I just want it off. I hope they don't take out Application Name - Quite application / Command + Q.

Full screen idea is kinda cool, but I have a 27 inch iMac because I want to be able to have a lot of apps open, at once, and see them them all. Not one giant app taking up the whole screen. I own a computer, not a portable device with a small screen. This means now if I want to change window size I will always have to use resize and drag my window to be bigger or smaller. Be nice if they just made a new function key that forces the app to full screen, or at least allow us to decided what we want the green button to do.

At the end of the day, I hope they keep OS X a computer OS.

[I just found this thread, thus my 'late' post here]

I agree with these sentiments.
While there are certainly some apps that I do want running much of the time --iCal, Preview, Text / Note / Journaling apps, that sort of thing-- there are certainly other apps that I want to be closed when I am done using it.

There is no reason for an app that I run one time a day or once a week, to be running in the background 24/7.

And yes, I would like a Final and Clean copy of a document, so that when I send it off to others as a final document, it is lean and trim and does not contain all my prior deletions. Shades of Microsoft Word "Fast Save" feature from years back. YIKES and YUCK!

And finally, I am also dismayed by what seems to be a trend towards making my Mac OS to be just a big iOS device.

Do you think that the Lion OS developers are writing code just on their iPods and iPads?

My desktop computer is my desktop computer, with a big screen so I can see several open windows at one time.

We do not spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on big screen computers just so that it acts like a magnified iPod/iPad.

I hope that Lion OS does not become the first ever Mac OS X version that I avoid.

My desktop computer is my desktop computer, with a big screen so I can see several open windows at one time.

We do not spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on big screen computers just so that it acts like a magnified iPod/iPad.

I hope that Lion OS does not become the first ever Mac OS X version that I avoid.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I have some points to enumerate.

So we have Spaces for OS X. It's great; I love it. I assign the applications I use (and groups thereof) to various Spaces to reduce window clutter (Adobe apps in one space, iWork/productivity in another, Safari separate from Mail separate from iChat, etc.).

The new gestures in iOS 4.3 are basically that in iPad form. Swipe between applications just how I swipe (Magic Trackpad and BetterTouchTool) between Spaces in OS X. It's WONDERFUL and it's how mobile multitasking should be done.

iOS is built out of an evolution of OS X, and while I don't want all desktop applications to be fullscreen (2560x1440 Cinema Display. I do NOT need a full-screened browser. Heck, no one does above 1024x768.), it makes sense to assign those that benefit from it (Aperture, Final Cut/Logic Studio) a Space and swipe to them in their own little ecosystem over there.

You can still "save as", whoever suggested you couldn't. Additionally versions can be deleted in various ways. This in in addition, it's an improvement. You've overcomplicated a very simple, easy automated system which helps workflow, not replaces anything.

[Note: I just discovered this thread so I apologize for jumping in late!}

Could you perhaps amplify your comments to include just how one can delete versions in various ways? I'm using Lion and haven't personally discovered any way. I don't mind if you reply via PM.

When you save as a duplicate, it becomes a new file, the contents of which are equal to the most current version of the document you just duplicated, and the version history is not copied over, the new duplicate is in effect version 1 of that new file, so it will only start to accrue new versions as and when the duplicate gets edited.

AppleInsider is completely incorrect regarding where the snapshots/revision changes are stored. They are not stored in the actual document file as the article states, but instead in, for example in the case of TextEdit, ~/Library/Containers/com.apple.TextEdit/Data/Library/Saved Application State.